PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs ABDUR REHMAN SHAUKAT
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a Lahore High Court order. The respondent's land had been acquired by the government for public utility purposes without the payment of any compensation. The High Court, while acknowledging the violation of the respondent's constitutional rights, declined to order the restoration of the land to avoid disrupting public utility works. Instead, it directed the government to allot 25 acres of alternative agricultural land to the respondent. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that there was no legal basis for ordering the allotment of alternative land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government's acquisition of land without compensation violated Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed the High Court's order as just, fair, and proper, emphasizing that the government cannot deprive a citizen of property without compensation. No question of law of public importance was raised, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the government's acquisition of private land without compensation violate the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a court direct the government to provide alternative land when the original land was acquired without compensation for public utility?
- Is the allotment of alternative land a valid remedy when the restoration of original land would harm public interest?
- Article 23, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Article 24, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 8th of May, 1997, the Lahore High court disposed of Writ Petition No,4243 of 1996 having been filed by the respondent, Abdul Rehman Shaukat. This order reads as follows:-- "Learned Advocate-General is not in a position to dispute that the land of the petitioner was taken without payment of any compensation. This act is, therefore, clearly in violation of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.
' In these circumstances, the petitioner is clearly entitled to have the land restored to him. However, as the land has been utilized for works of public utility, I am not minded to pass such an order lest the public interest suffers. The best course appears to be to direct the Government to provide alternative land to the petitioners. The learned Advocate-General is also of the same view and suggests that a direction be issued to the respondent to allot 25 acres of agricultural land to the petitioner in lieu of land. Order accordingly.
' The allotment shall be made within a period of two months from today. Disposed of in the above terms." ' against the above order, the petitioners have failed this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel has submitted before us that there is no law under which alternative land can be ordered to be allotted to the respondent. No other joint has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. We do not find any substance in the argument inasmuch as it is admitted that the land of the respondent has been acquired and no compensation Las been given to him in lieu of the said land.
The aforesaid order of the High Court is just, fair and proper. We agree with the view taken by the High Court that the act of the petitioners in acquiring the land of the respondent without giving him the compensation is in violation of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No question of law of public importance has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these proceedings. This being so, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. Asiya Ashraf Chaudhary vs Government of the Punjab etc 2020 CLC 503, 2019 LHC 4039
- GUJRANWALA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN 2001 YLR 1884
- Muhammad Younis etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary 2023 LHC 1350